HD x264 video encoding benchmark - would you like to run it?

Techarp is hosting my HD x264 benchmark. Have a look and run it on your system to help populate the data table. Or if you aren't interested in participating, have a look at the data table to see how different machines at different stock and overclocked levels perform doing x264 video encoding.

Basically, you run the test encode of an HD sample (1280x720) and it will report back frames-per-second values for your machine @ it's clock/overclock level.

My goal is to have a representative set of data for many different chips and chipsets. Please just report your results here in this thread. I will keep the data at that url to keep things simple.

Thanks all and enjoy!

The following image will be updated automatically as new data comes in (er.. as I update the tables). It doesn't display any results, but it does show the number of data points collected so far and how they break down by CPU type:

 

...no takers?

 

Ill do it when i get home. Im sure you dont have a spot for a 1.7GHZ pentium 4

 

Running this by cpu name won't give particularly great data. Take the celeron for instance, an old socket 370 celeron at say 600mhz will produce a wildly different result to one of the new celerons based on the c2d style intel core. Whereas other cpu's have a much more focused range, the pentium d for example.

Apart from that it's a good idea - maybe do it with a more focused set of cpus.

 

I was going to, but I can't be bothered to disable UAC, restart, run the benchmark, Enable UAC, and then restart again.

Never mind.

 

@badders - yeah, UAC sucks. It's a joke trying to emulate having to su in LINUX. It's more of a pain than it is a useful feature in my opinion.

@EnglishL - you can analyze the data any way you want since it's freely available in xls format on the official host.

@Squadexodus - the slowest machine in the table is my archaic P2-450 so there's room for your machine

 

Well, its not my machine. Besides, its too slow for me to bother it. I have 3 hours till i get home, ill try it then

 

Not sure how the results are calculated mate:

Surely as its encoding at a higher fps using v0.59.819M the throughput for pass one should be higher each time than when using v0.58.747?

 

thanks for the data... Actually, if you look at the other X2's in the table, 4-5 % increase is standard. Your's is 4.7 % so right in the mean